Subscribe To

Thursday, 28 July 2016

Climate change denial in the NZ Herald

I don't normally have space for climate denial nonsense, but here from the NZ Herald...

"Meanwhile
this idiot Chris de Freitas writes this irresponsible crap in the NZ
herald. As associate professor in the School of Environment at the
University of Auckland he should no better and is surely tainting the
reputation of that university as being filled with 'climate deniers'."

---Kevin
Hester

Chris
de Freitas: No place for scare tactics

Scientists'
duty goes both ways - it is irresponsible to spook public on
potentially serious issues such as climate change.

Chris
de Freitas is an associate professor in the School of Environment at
the University of Auckland.

The
column by University of Canterbury sociologist Jarrod Gilbert
describing climate change "denial" as a crime, is alarming
because he suggests those with opinions different to his should be
silenced. What is happening to our education system when university
lecturers attack, rather than defend, free speech?

The
most worrying aspect of this is the apparent desire to close down
debate on a theme that is associated with costly energy policies and
other grave economic consequences.

Calling
climate sceptics "deniers" is done with the intention of
putting them in the same class as "Holocaust deniers". In
this context, "denier" has much the same connotation as the
N word to refer to people of a certain skin colour. Such insinuations
are an insult to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust or
those with dark skin. It is both inappropriate and offensive.

In
the words of colleague Benny J. Peiser: "As long as we are
unable to explain the evident inconsistencies that fly in the face of
climate alarmism, attempts to associate scientific scepticism with
Holocaust denial can only be regarded as political incitement."

The
level of hysteria now being stirred up against climate scientists who
are raising very serious questions is reminiscent of attacks made on
scientists in Stalin's Soviet Union and pre-war Germany. Those who
resort to shooting at the messenger are presumably those without
solid arguments on the science.

Just
as sceptics have no right to ridicule what is a potentially serious
topic, climate catastrophists have a social responsibility not to
unjustifiably spook the public.

Climate
change scepticism comes in many forms, some which are no less absurd
than climate catastrophism. No sceptic denies that climate changes.
There is no such thing as a constant climate. For 4.2 billion years,
climate has always been getting warmer or colder, wetter or drier,
and there has never been runaway warming or cooling.

Recent
research findings show there is no evidence -- none at all -- to
support the global warmers' scaremongering.

Most
climate scientists would agree rising carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere due to fossil fuel use could affect global climate. Basic
physics supports this view. But there is no evidence that the
putative change would be large or damaging. Output from computer
models is not evidence unless model performance has been validated.
So far, it has not.

For
significant global warming to occur, increased concentrations must
set in motion positive (or destabilising) feedback processes. Such
processes would cause temperatures to rise by some other mechanism.
One such mechanism is increased evaporation caused by higher
temperatures leading to rising water vapour concentration, which is
by far the most important greenhouse gas. This would increase
retention of energy from the Sun and lead to further warming.

To
date, scientific evidence suggests that negative (stabilising)
feedback processes prevail, possibly due to the cooling effect of
increased cloudiness from water vapour increase. If true, this means
it is unlikely higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere will greatly influence global climate.

Negative
feedback processes are played down by climate alarmists who assume
climate is governed by positive feedback processes which they claim
will lead to runaway global warming. Four billion years of global
climate history shows that negative feedbacks prevail.

"Climate
change" does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. The
evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural
change. This has not been done.

From
the research to date, it appears the influence of increasing carbon
dioxide on global warming is almost indiscernible. Warming could
occur, but no evidence suggests it will amount to much.

One
could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other,
is no reason for complacency. I will concede that.